[Hyack]

martin14 martin14:

hmmmmm, I wonder how much of a smuggling business can be set up ?

Or did everyone prepare a private stock..

Amen bro......

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've bought enough light bulbs to last the rest of my life. There's nothing like a regular light bulb for reading a good book.

ditto....

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

in a cold climate are they really that energy inefficient, seeing as they heat the room too?

Yup. Thermodynamics, not just a good idea, it's the Law! Energy that could be light is instead transmitted as heat. Inefficient. Notice that the really efficient quartz heaters emit no light? A good light should emit no heat.

And that heat goes into heating our homes a good portion of the year, exactly during the time of year when we're most using lights as well. Also during the time of the day when heat is most needed - at night The incandescent bulb will be as efficient as somebody using electric heat.

[herbie]

Arggghhh!!!
The Scisnce students really are all from China and India. Fucking N American boys asking if a 13 watt bulb is really more efficient than a 60 watt bulb.
Geez - retake Grade Six math FFS!

[andyt]

Ofcourse the 13w bulb will use less electricity. But again, if you're heating your house, the heat generated by the 60w bulb will just replace heat you would otherwise supply with your heater. It's not wasted.

[PluggyRug]

Replace all the outside lights with led's, keep all the incandescents inside.

No heat lost outdoors all heat kept inside...job done and screw you half assed government.

[herbie]

Unless you're 8 feet tall you'll never feel that heat off an incandescent light bulb. Your thermostat won't it's only 4 feet off the floor.
Says the eco-nazi with the 460V8 in the driveway......

[DrRosen]

Funny that the people bitching about high efficiency lightbulbs seem to be the same ones whining about their hydro bills.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

Unless you're 8 feet tall you'll never feel that heat off an incandescent light bulb. Your thermostat won't it's only 4 feet off the floor.
Says the eco-nazi with the 460V8 in the driveway......

All heat rises, so the heat from the light bulb will displace the heat that would otherwise rise from your heater.

[Xort]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

but by doing both, giving off heat and light, are they really saving us any money, or are the savings so infinitesimal as to be nil? Extra heat sources are appreciated right now

It would only be equal if you used electric heating. Most places use either natural gas, or heating oil.

The energy lost in burning natural gas to generate electricity then use that to make heat is huge, call it half.

[Canadian_Mind]

DrRosen DrRosen:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

but by doing both, giving off heat and light, are they really saving us any money, or are the savings so infinitesimal as to be nil? Extra heat sources are appreciated right now

Test that theory. Turn off your furnace and cook your roast supper with the oven door open.

I get what he is saying. Say you have a set amount power available to light and heat a given space. Will the efficient light and efficient heater produce more total light and power than an inefficient light and heater combined?

Something else I'm wondering, how much more energy and materials go into producing the more "efficient" systems?

[saturn_656]

From what I've read you will still be able to buy rough service incandescents in various wattages.

Don't despair yet.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I get what he is saying. Say you have a set amount power available to light and heat a given space. Will the efficient light and efficient heater produce more total light and power than an inefficient light and heater combined?

Something else I'm wondering, how much more energy and materials go into producing the more "efficient" systems?

What kind of dumbt question is that? Of course the efficient setup will produce more light and heat for the same power usage, or, more likely the same light and heat for less power. Pretty obvious, no?

Electric heat is usually more expensive than gas. I've read 70% But if you have it you're stuck with it, so in that case using incandescents costs nothing. And electric heat has thermostats in every room - you don't need to heat the whole house to the same temp. It can actually be cheaper to set the gas furnace in the house to a low temp, then use an electric space heater in the rooms you're actually using. Since those are also the rooms you need light in, again, the incandescent won't cost you much to use.

All lighting sources aside from incandescents cost way more to purchase. Fluorescents contain mercury and pollute the environment. They take a huge load on first turning on, so if you're always turning lights off and on they're not that efficient. They also burn out way faster than advertised when continually turned off and on. LED's AFAIK, require retrofitting, they don't just screw into an incandescent socket.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I get what he is saying. Say you have a set amount power available to light and heat a given space. Will the efficient light and efficient heater produce more total light and power than an inefficient light and heater combined?

Something else I'm wondering, how much more energy and materials go into producing the more "efficient" systems?

What kind of dumbt question is that? Of course the efficient setup will produce more light and heat for the same power usage, or, more likely the same light and heat for less power. Pretty obvious, no?

An incandescent bulb is about 2% efficient. For a 100 watt bulb, it will produce 2 watts of light, and 98 watts of heat. A CFL bulb can be up to 70% efficient. So a 20 watt CFL will produce 14 watts of light, 6 watts of heat and use 1/5 the power of a 100w incandecent. An LED can be 90% efficient, so a 10W LED will produce more light than a 100W incandescent and almost no heat.

andyt andyt:

Fluorescents contain mercury and pollute the environment. They take a huge load on first turning on, so if you're always turning lights off and on they're not that efficient.

Incorrect. They contain mercury (unless you go with an LED retrofit tube), but don't pollute the environment. Most newer florescent have an 'instant on' ballast that doesn't take a huge load, and anyone standing there flicking the lights on and off should get punched in the face.

andyt andyt:

They also burn out way faster than advertised when continually turned off and on.

So, don't.

andyt andyt:

LED's AFAIK, require retrofitting, they don't just screw into an incandescent socket.

Yes, they can. And there are LED retrofit bulbs for pretty much every fixture, from incandescent, florescent and halogen types to outdoor floodlights.

And some can be 'tuned' to any colour you want.

http://www.gizmag.com/philips-hue-led-w ... ulb/24784/

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a new wrinkle on this story. New to me anyway.

The Washington Examiner puts forward the argument it was industry not environmentalism that killed the incandescent bulb.

$1:

Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that's the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That's the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/industry- ... le/2541430

[herbie]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

From what I've read you will still be able to buy rough service incandescents in various wattages.

Don't despair yet.

They sell them in small rural towns where it's too fucking far to take them back when 10% of them flash and burn out the minute they're screwed in.
Scam.
That's why you don't here any rural people whining. Nobody uses the old bulbs, they don't last for shit.